You must log in or register to comment.
Alright new atrocity from Israel just dropped, who should we blame:
The fascists running Israelthe fascists running the USthe democratic party who teed up the atrocity- a couple hundred leftists on lemmy who didn’t vote
he only said this to distract from what Elmo is doing right now… the classified computers he’s taken over…
the fact that they’ve already begun reprogramming the treasury computer system, meaning they must have had illegal access to plan that well before trump was sworn in….
i don’t think trump will ever get the authority to occupy gaza and “relocate” all of them…BUT WHAT ABOUT GENOCIDE JOE!?! KAMALA IS BAD! TRUNP WILL FIX EVERYTHING!
/s
No one said this.
Wat? Pretty much everybody said this.
Who on Lemmy was saying, “Trump will fix everything?” Where?
Meanwhile 🦗🦗🦗🦗 from the genocide Joe caucus.
Do you not think Biden was instrumental in setting this up?
I’m not sure the incessant chorus of 'I told you so’s is really helping the cause.
Personally, I’m watching the dumpster fire from up on your hat, without any option to participate in your elections either way, but it’s still getting pretty grating. Surely, there’s a better strategy.
What the fuck are we supposed to say? We spent a year and a half doing everything in our power to show the dems what they need to do to have a chance to win, they chose genocide instead.
Too late to say anything now that you’ve helped elect the orange felon. Too bad you couldn’t stfu before and steered a significant amount of people to vote for the cunt as a protest vote. Enjoy the alternative.
Did you think that maybe uniting behind an evil candidate as your collective sole effort to defeat Trump was a bad plan?
You all say, “if only you all did what we did, we would have won.” That’s true in reverse - if you had all only done what we did, we would have won. And we wouldn’t have had a war criminal in office either.
Why is the Democrat the default vote? How is it compatible with democracy at all, that the one thing we actually control as a people, the vote, isn’t even based on who’s the best candidate?
In my mind, this is very simple, we have a basic responsibility as a people to exercise FULL control over who’s in office, to secure the outcomes we want. And we’re failing to do that. We don’t go through the process of figuring out who out of every candidate is best. The TV tells us which of two candidates to pick, and we pick one of those two. That eliminates all democratic checks on the government.
Hey you can elect this person that’ll slap you or this person that’ll stab you in the face.
Oh well the slapping is so bad we should just not choose either and give the win to face stabby candidate. That’s the dumbass “logic” that got us here.
I mean, I fully expect it was also mostly a foreign psyop to steer votes toward Trump or at least generate apathy and keep votes from going to Kamala (same outcome more or less). Mostly because it’s such a dumb premise of why you wouldn’t vote for Harris and just sit out the election. So I can’t imagine it was truly widespread and I think that’s also why it’s crickets now that the election is over and Russia’s orange gremlin candidate for president of the USA won.
The actual choice:
A) Stabs you in the heart
B) Stabs you in the lung
C) No stabbing, picks wildflowers for you
And you guys go, “C isn’t viable! At least you’re less likely to die if you get stabbed in the lung - you have an entire hour to get to the hospital!”
Bro, C is right there. Was there the whole time. Why the fuck would we, AS A POPULATION, choose anything but the best option.
No, C is not “right there” when our electoral politics work the way they do. That’s a huge strawman argument.
The reality is there were two choices, one clearly better for Palestinians.
A strawman argument is when they misrepresent something you’re saying, not when you think they’re wrong about how electoral politics work.
“Work the way they do”. Oh, OK. If that’s not how electoral politics work!
C got you trump you utter doughnut.
Game theory has consequences.
Did you see this part of my comment?
Why the fuck would we, AS A POPULATION, choose anything but the best option.
The population voting for C gets you…what? Let’s think about this. Is it…C? Hmm, yes, it is.
Notice how I made a point to phrase it that way, to preempt comments like yours entirely? And then you went and posted that anyway, either because you didn’t read my comment, or just felt like ignoring the point I was actually making?
You people INSIST we only ever look at it in terms of, “49.999 are voting Trump, 49.999 are voting Harris, your vote decides the election!” The pre-narrowed, individual choice. But that’s not how the game theory applies here. The game in this case is that there’s ~210M people with the ability to vote for anyone. There is no pre-narrowing. Their collective decision results in the electoral outcome. Your application of game theory here is literally incorrect.
By your logic, choices A through Z all have equal odds of winning.
They don’t.
I can go into a full explanation about how you’re wrong and you are also to blame for this happening, but I won’t cause were so far past the tipping point there no reason to explain it to you anymore. Just know most everyone here knows you’re either ignorant or dumb. The rest of us know you’re both
The odds of winning, for the candidate that secures a majority of EC votes, is exactly 100% (so long as that process is followed). The determining factor of that is the voting decisions of the population. That is not a function you can describe only in probabilistic terms. By all means, let’s hear your broken explanation filled with omissions and logical errors.
There are no wildflowers on the road to hell, but it is paved with good intentions.
C is right there only if you’re naive enougn to believe it.
Most people don’t want war. Yet they will go to war, each side convinced in their own self-righteousness. That is the human condition. Picking wildflowers isn’t going to stop the Nazi boot or anything else for that matter. Another way to think about it - Charlie Chaplin’s messages in the 1930s were great, full of hope, and reached a lot of people. But that was nowhere near what was needed. Tens of millions had to die. It’s not gonna be any different this time around, Chaplin or no Chaplin.
It’s not the “human condition”. All of these things are products of cultural practices and belief systems. Not all societies wage war. Not all societies put mass murderers in control. You cannot be so careless with your logic and hope to ever arrive at a correct conclusion.
And we (informed voters) spent a year and a half painting you a very detailed picture of what was going to happen if you didn’t suck it up and do what was necessary to keep a rapist traitor out of the White House. Hell… even HE spent a year and a half telling you exactly what he was going to do.
Remember Project 2025? Yeah… that is the actual name of what’s happening right now.
Sooo……
What the fuck are we supposed to say?
Start with: “I’m sorry” and work from there. Because anything short of this is unacceptable.
To be honest, of all the posts I’ve seen of the shit Trump is pulling, all I’ve seen is comments complaining of the Democrats who didn’t vote. The actual story in the post…crickets. It’s unnerving when you want to actually see comments about the subject of the post and all the comments are “wwuuaahhh, you didn’t vote for Harris it’s all your fault” against people who aren’t even reading the goddamn posts. I’m sick of it!
Like…I hear you guys. I don’t fully agree but I hear you. But for fuck sakes, let it go, lets talk about the actual post instead of going on and on about the perceived injustice the Democrats have suffefed. Right or wrong, it’s done! Let it go!
Did you think that maybe it’s because we all already knew about all of this shit? So it’s not as important for us to spend time discussing it because…
WE ALREADY HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST YEAR.
So wtf are you doing on here then? Your entire premise is so sad, months after one failed victory and you’re demanding random strangers say they’re “sorry” to you? Were you Kamala’s campaign manager or something? Because the vibes fit right in.
You spent a year telling people what to do, congrats. Do you think the progressive movement just started? Do you think this is the first set-back the world has succumbed to?
It’s kinda obvious that comments like yours reveal it’s just some sort of sports game to you. You spent one singular year talking progressively, so now it’s not as important to you but will post several comments saying how important it is for others on your team to bow down to your superiority… because you spent a singular year talking progressively… whoopdee fucking doo.
The only thing that would have kept Trump out of the whitehouse was for the democrats to stop facilitating genocide.
You blue MAGA are the ones who helped them maintain the delusion they could have both their genocide and win. You helped them maintain the delusion they could have won with Biden until 5 months before the election.
The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped. Not saying it’s good, just sayings it’s true, and waving Gaza around as “the reason” Harris lost is kind of disingenuous and misses the bigger picture
Right up front, I voted for the ‘lesser evil’ in a swing state, so stow those comments about me enabling fascism.
The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped
I mean, you can keep saying that. But it’s not even true among Jewish voters, let alone the larger electorate.
I’m really starting to suspect these kind of comments are morality laundering after spending months backing an immoral stance held by a feckless executive who refused to see past his moral blind spot.
- The populace didn’t want the death and destruction.
- Career bureaucrats at the state department didn’t want it.
- Online commentators refused to seriously entertain criticism of Joe as anything but bad faith - so the message became “we’re okay with it” never “I don’t want this or Trump, do better Joe”
The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped.
“Our country just wants genocide too much” is quite the take.
I love this logic because it doesn’t even matter how bad the position is - we could be arguing against sending immigrants to gas chambers and you could still say “sorry, they can’t run against that because they’d lose more votes than they’d gain”. Nevermind the fact that they helped to create the political reality that they are now claiming to be helpless against. They spent the last 80 years making Israel into the centerpiece of middle eastern foreign policy and now they can’t speak out against an ongoing genocide because they might lose their control and influence in the region.
Even better - some of the same people saying ‘gaza isn’t the reason we lost’ are also saying ‘we lost because we’re too woke’ - it shows just how much contempt the democrats have for their base that they dismiss the problem being with their genocidal foreign policy and instead blame their loss on being too friendly toward minorities.
Yes, the bigger picture is that as soon as Harris got the nomination, she ran back to the cold, dead embrace of the Biden campaign, and supported every single policy that made Biden so unpopular. No muslim spoke at the DNC, but they had cops, CPB, and republicans speaking for the party.
Her words when asked what the difference between a Biden and Harris admin would be was “Well I would appoint a republican to my cabinet”.
LMAO your moral stand is going to literally get people murdered.
How does that feel? I think it’d feel bad.
Lmao, are you making a moral argument against acting according to morals?
You don’t even need to take the moral stand to tell democrats to do the moral thing when the moral thing is also the only shot they had at winning.
Your stance is morally repugnant, but more importantly, ineffective. We told the democrats they would lose if they did genocide. You told the democrats they could win while doing genocide. Look at what happened.
bLuE mAgA!
It’s good to see you leaning into what your entitlement has won for you. Glad you can own it so transparently.
People are going to suffer but at least it’s not the democrats brand of genocide, right?
You learned nothing in 2016, you learned nothing in 2020, and you learned nothing in 2024. Can’t wait to see you insisting that the democrats can win while running on compromise, building the wall, deporting every immigrant, getting tough on crime, banning trans people from public life, and continuing whatever war Trump starts in 2028.
That still doesn’t sound like “I’m sorry.”
God imagine if there was a Blue MAGA, a cult that was just as die-hard about protecting transpeople, labor rights, and all that as Red MAGA was with destroying them.
I cannot imagine a cult stronger than one supporting genocide.
Frankly I think that’s the answer - lie to the retards better than the real MAGA - but Democrats won’t do that…
🤡
Congratulations, you enabled the real genocide. I hope you’re proud of yourself.
Work within the constraints of the first past the post voting system you have while working toward ranked choice or something more functional.
Joe offered me Vanilla Ice Cream, but I prefer Strawberry, so to spite Joe I took Donald’s offer to let him piss in my mouth…
You were warned what Trump wanted to do, and now he’s turning Palestine into a Trump Resort
So the last and final attempt to steer the United States from fuelling genocide failed.
They did their job: telling you about news that just occurred at that moment. For the analysis they will need some time. Which is absolutely right.
What should the BBC have done?
Factually state the implications of what Trump is saying, forcefully?
They don’t have to turn into a Fox opinion segment, they can just explain reality instead of blowing past it, then turning to talking heads.
I happen to have BBC News on just now. Besides factually reporting on what Trump said, over the past hour they’ve interviewed a number of people about the topic each offering different perspective. Many of them commented on what utter rubbish Trump’s statements were. I’d say BBC reporting on the topic has been factual, balanced and to a good standard I’d expect of them.
Good! I stand corrected.
It’s not really a news agency’s place to start guessing or claiming on what this might mean. They could report on people making that claim they, as they have done
The UN Secretary General’s spokesperson Stephane Dujarric has just previewed remarks that we are expecting this afternoon from Antonio Guterres, in response to President Donald Trump’s shocking plan for the US to take over Gaza.
On Gaza, Guterres will say that it is “vital to stay true to the bedrock of international law” and “essential to avoid any form of ethnic cleansing”.
Since Trump made his controversial Gaza remarks yesterday, some Democrats have taken to social media to condemn his comments.
Many have accused the Republican president of “promoting ethnic cleaning” for saying Palestinians should leave Gaza and settle elsewhere.
“It is horrific,” Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters, adding: “It is part of the culmination of what I view to be genocide of the Palestinian people.”
Use the term “Ethnic Cleansing” because that is literally the term which describes Trumps plan…
I don’t think it’s a new agency’s job to make such claims, but they have reported on people calling it that
The UN Secretary General’s spokesperson Stephane Dujarric has just previewed remarks that we are expecting this afternoon from Antonio Guterres, in response to President Donald Trump’s shocking plan for the US to take over Gaza.
On Gaza, Guterres will say that it is “vital to stay true to the bedrock of international law” and “essential to avoid any form of ethnic cleansing”.
Since Trump made his controversial Gaza remarks yesterday, some Democrats have taken to social media to condemn his comments.
Many have accused the Republican president of “promoting ethnic cleaning” for saying Palestinians should leave Gaza and settle elsewhere.
“It is horrific,” Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told reporters, adding: “It is part of the culmination of what I view to be genocide of the Palestinian people.”
Watch: ‘Definition of ethnic cleansing’, Ocasio-Cortez says on Trump’s Gaza plan
Can’t say I see anything wrong with BBC’s actions here tbh.
Hey does Pepperidge farms remember all the fucking morons on Lemmy urging not to vote for Harris because she was allegedly complicit in genocide? I sure as shit do.
Know what’s gonna be objectively worse, 100% regardless of the veracity those allegations? The reality that they helped forge instead.
Same shit, different asshole? Democrats at least could’ve promised an end to the genocide but they collected the pay cheque from AIPAC instead
Ergo, they lost
It’s That Simple™
(Don’t @ me I’m not American, thank god)
I think people overestimating just how much the average person cares about wars abroad. This applies to every country.
Those millions of democratic voters that voted Biden in 2020, saw that the cost of living keeps going up, inflation happens and correlates with Biden’s term, and most people doesn’t understand that:
Correlation =/= Causation.
Most of those 7 million Democratic voters that voted Biden but didn’t vote Harris are probably thinking: I voted for Joe Biden and nothing changed, why bother voting
I doubt that 7 Million people suddenly cared about a foreign genocide (like when have the average civillian cared?)
The point was to pressure the Dems into giving up on genocide. You wanna talk about “pepperidge farm remembers”, I got one for ya
Remember when the Dems thought they could win while actively telling people who were anti genocide to go fuck themselves?
Hey, what’s weirder? Not voting for someone committing genocide, or being unwilling to stop committing a genocide even if it costs you the election?
How does it feel that the only thing that Harris had to do was say “I will stop weapons to Israel” and she would of won?
You can’t keep blaming the voters when the strategy was at fault. They knew they would lose votes. They thought they could court the centrists and liberal Republicans to make up for it. They were so fucking wrong. And somehow it’s not their own fault for having the worst campaign strategy known to man.
Like, Christ. Y’all ain’t ever gonna stop trying to blame leftists. You’ll be up against the wall with leftists fighting for your life and you’ll still be like “can’t believe you didn’t vote Harris”. I can’t believe Harris threw away the election over the continued genocide of palastinians. That’s fucking crazy. Is that not crazy to you? You don’t find it fucking insane that the Dems would rather a fascist state than stop actively committing a genocide? Cause that’s the fucking Gambit they ran and look where we are.
Look. I’m pissed. Your pissed. But we are just people with no power. Same with all those voters you wanna complain about. All we have is the ability to yell and vote. And while I voted for Harris out of fucking fear, I cannot blame the people who yelled “I will not vote for you if you keep committing genocide” and were fucking CALLED ON THAT SHIT. What kind of monster gambles with their own base over a fucking genocide?
Remember when the Dems thought they could win while actively telling people who were anti genocide to go fuck themselves?
I do, and was downvoted for calling it out from my last account, and this one for remembering it.
Are these people gaslit or are they doing it for their favorite political celebrities who don’t know they exist or care for them?
Anything other than concede to the left. Gotta protect that capital
As a fellow reluctant Harris voter, what upsets me the most is that the numbers people have run shows that no, actually, genocide was not the deciding factor in this election, which is kind of an indictment of America itself, but regardless, I’m sick of leftists being blamed when all the ones I know STILL voted Harris and the data shows that it wasn’t leftist that didn’t turn out, it was centrists. Harris didn’t have a voter base. Sure, some dems turned out, but she didn’t actually inspire people to vote, and that’s basically the only way dems win.
Why blame the politicians with data and statistics on how to run a campaign when you can blame the voters who showed up?
It’s because she has no message. All she could promise voters was stuff like “I’ll give you a little bit of money to help you get a house.” She was all flash and no substance.
*for first time homebuyers who have rented for at least 2 years without a late payment
Because there’s nothing that makes a proposal more popular than adding means-testing.
She had a message, it was “more of the same”; when asked what she would do differently from Biden her response wasn’t “Fuck this guy who spent the last 4 years doing fuckall, I would have defended abortion rights, appointed an AG who would have put Trump in prison and gone after Manchin and Sinoma, and any republican, a head of the DEA who would have unscheduled cannabis, etc”, she said the difference was that she would appoint a republican to the cabinet.
100%
She could have read a laundry list of her First Week, Month intended actions and won over huge swaths of voters- if that was her strategy to win.
Instead she chose fuckall, which is exactly what Biden did for 4 years.
That promise for housing gets misquoted as well as what she actually offered was:
First generation homebuyers who no one in their family has ever owned a house, after paying rent in a government approved rental firm for 2 years could get up to $25,000. And stated starter homes would cost between $300,000 and $800,000 dollars depending on location.She did have a point to ask Congress to pass legislation to slow people buying more than 50 single family homes.
This was lost to her wealthy advisors telling her to not go through with these plans as they would impact the investment opportunities of housing.
She barely even got to flash before the DNC tried to reign in anything that might change things.
voting is power, hell not voting is power. is it a fair system?
fuck no, but not voting did help get us here
disclaimer: gerrymandering and voter suppression also played a huge role
You know who committed genocide?
Stalin killed thousands of Poles. The USA had lynchings going on all through WW2. I’m not even going to start on the UK.
And they were all better alternatives than Hitler.
Greatest defence in the world. Vote for lynchings, better than extermination camps.
Or. Hear me out. Put a fucking bullet in both of them some bitches and stop accepting the lesser evil.
And what gun are you going to use?
Tell me what plan you have that puts Trump out.
deleted by creator
Stalin killed thousands of Poles.
Won’t anybody think of those poor innocent Germans Stalin killed?
The USSR was at war with right-wing insurgents. If you want to go down a rabbithole, do some research on any “polish resistance”, 50% chance you’ll come across nazi collaboration, warcrimes directed at jews, or both.
So, you’re saying Stalin should have turned down help from the Brits and Americans?
What are we talking about? I’m just saying one of those leaders was not like the other.
I’m talking about getting allies.
If you’re saying Stalin was perfect, okay. He still got in bed with the US and England.
Are you saying he shouldn’t have done that?
lol Stalin wasn’t perfect, he did some awful things such as the internment or relocation of minorities in preparation for WWII and various advice/demands he gave to the CPC that was catastrophic.
But to address your point, your enemy giving you equipment to help you fight another enemy doesn’t track to telling anyone telling the democrats that genocide is unpopular to shut up.
If yall had helped us, the democrats might have listened and not have driven the bus off the cliff. If we had shut up, they absolutely would have driven off the cliff.
Honestly not sure why it hasn’t been suggested that the ‘no vote’ bullshit was a tactic to get Repubs the win. Sure as hell worked and didn’t do anything to solve the issue, as we can blatantly see now.
It has, it’s been a conspiracy on lemmy for the past 6 months. Any time anyone criticized Biden or Harris for aiding a genocide someone would pop up and say they’re a secret republican or Russian bot.
It has, constantly. Anyone who disagrees with you folks is labelled a Russian bot who wants Trump to win. Even if they fall in line they were labelled that way, just for saying things like, “I’ll vote for Biden but his age is a legitimate concern.”
Wasn’t the idea to get the Democrats to explicitly state they were a anti genocide and promise policies to back that up?
That was the big ask, yes.
It absolutely was. And it was pushed by tiktok, a Chinese psyop.
GeNoCiDe jOe!!!
So, every hypothetical situation besides Trump winning, in the end, did not play out, due to the failure of the American population to mount a united opposition to Trump. Harris didn’t win, De la Cruz didn’t win, Stein didn’t win, West didn’t win, etc.
Now let’s focus on this question for two seconds, because I don’t think you all have ever actually addressed it. Putting aside the supposed “viability” as a reason for to vote for them - since that’s circular logic before the election has even happened. Putting that ASIDE. Of all the non-Trump candidates, who, in the seat of the Presidency, would have been the best candidate for the job? Who, sitting in that office, would have produced the best outcome for Americans, or the world as a whole?
I mean she entirely was.
And considering the US blocked every ceasefire under her and Biden, and people pointed out even a year ago that the US and Israel want an alternative to the Suez canal, and people pointed out that Israel was moving Palestinians out with the US’s help in order to do this, all that happened. Pretty sure it was going exactly the same way. If you haven’t noticed, democrats aren’t exactly sitting up and saying this is ethnic cleansing or genocide even now. Or trying to fight it.
You’re an idiot and the reason Trump won and is ruining the country. Congrats you enlightened centrist. Stupid fuck
My guy I’m exceptionally left wing in my politics I’m not even close to centrist. I’m not sure how you got that from my response.
Hey, everybody, we need to ignore trolls like this. They’re trying to divide the left. Instead, we have to unite to fight Trump.
I don’t think history looks back negatively on any “I won’t support [a little] genocide” crowd, if there isn’t maybe this will be the first.
Is there a particular “this group of common folk opposed Hitler wrongly, everything’s their fault” narrative that is common? I meant this as a rant, but I’m too ignorant and perhaps there is. Obviously, Nazis and Nazi supporters are criticised. There’s those in power that handed it off to Hitler that take some flak. But those without power and also didn’t support Hitler what criticisms do they come under
Learning the lessons of history and who future generations are going to blame for the here and now. Is it going to be leftists that didn’t vote Nazi?
It’s also obvious that Trump and BB were coordinating during the election to ensure Biden couldn’t get a ceasefire deal in place in order to harm him politically. But as soon as Trump takes the office they just agree to a ceasefire no problem (as if that hadn’t been the plan all along) aaaaaaand then Trump goes off about finishing the job and annexing the whole west bank for the US. What a fucking surprise.
I thought the ceasefire happened under Biden, but after the election had already been lost?
It did, but it was Trump’s representative who got the deal done. Trump didn’t want to deal with the hostage crisis along with everything else he had planned.
‘allegedly’
The mental gymnastics will only intensify as these fucking crypto-nazis get to distance themselves from their beliefs and actions of just a few months ago.
Harris was complicit in genocide.
Trump loudly talked about how he would make the genocide worse.
Why absolve Harris in an attempt to strengthen your argument?
nobody is absolving Harris. She was the lesser evil, and many people chose not to choose, resulting in the greater evil anyways.
I still can’t get over how they were essentially presented with a simplified version of the trolley problem and chose to not pull the lever.
By their own narrative that “the democrats are complicit in a genocide in Gaza”, they were aware that Palestinians were metaphorically tied to both tracks, yet decided to not pull the lever when America itself and every marginalized person living within was also on the track the trolley barreled towards.
Why the fuck did the democrats leave Palestinians to their tracks?
This didn’t have to be a difficult problem where we’re forced to vote for genocide. The only people at fault for the democrats doing something as wildly unpopular as genocide, silencing anyone who said “You need to stop this if you want to win”, and reaping the effects of that policy being unpopular are the democrats.
It’s almost like single-issue voters aren’t very good at logic problems…
The trolley problem is not a logic problem JFC. Every one of you gets an F in philosophy 101.
I suspected that many of the accounts were Russian plants or Trump supporters trying to divide the Democrat vote. Most of the time when I checked account age they were made either that day or the day before.
I know that Lemmy is new and all but still was sus.
I haven’t gone back to accounts to see if they are still active. I suspect that they aren’t.
I suspect that what we saw here on lemmy were actual people who had been indoctrinated elsewhere.
Lemmy isn’t really big enough to be a target for bots and so on.
Bots are cheap to write. That’s naive to think there wasn’t a disinformation war going on with bots being on the forefront of it.
Calling it simplified does a disservice of the real world impacts of the “trolley” - especially since unlike a thought experiment - this trolley problem is physically constructed by people to achieve imperialistic goals - so expending energy blaming random lemmings for this - instead of figuring out who built, maintains and presents the trolley as the only option and how to dismantle it seems useless.
I believe we should avoid infighting and actually organize to do something so we don’t have to choose if we pull the lever or not every 4 years (if there even is another election…)
I find it scary how easily people where fine with having genocide on both sides of the ticket.
Not having a choice and being fine with with the choice you have are drastically different situations, and it’s concerning how many people are incapable of unwilling to tell the difference between the two.
I would argue the entire problem is the self-defeating mentality that the D vs R choice is the only choice. It’s in fact the population believing that - in itself - that results in the poor election outcomes for third parties. Something which was not true as recently as 30 years ago.
The population, in fact, has the option to vote for any candidate on the ballot, or even write in candidates. The so-called “viability” of third party candidates is a mental fiction. The “viability” only has to do with people’s willingness to vote for them, which, in a massive circular logic, is based on their perception that the rest of the population will not vote for them. That is the actual mechanism at play here (besides the truly brainwashed, faithful supporters of the two major parties, at least).
In fact, the entire U.S. constitutional system is only a tradition/custom, that we have the option to up and abandon when it no longer serves us. The reason we get stuck with it is the various state actors (cops, military) who do not understand that it’s not some sacred inviolable thing, or actually support it, and are willing to use violence on the population to enforce its implementation. What actually happens if the indoctrination of the entire population - Trump and Harris supporters and all - is undone, and we come up with a different, better vision for our society?
I would argue the entire problem is the self-defeating mentality that the D vs R choice is the only choice. It’s in fact the population believing that - in itself - that results in the poor election outcomes for third parties.
I’m not going to read the rest of your response, because you might as well be telling me that the person with the most points isn’t the one who wins the superbowl. Between that and what little I read of your second paragraph tells me you either don’t understand the system, or you don’t understand game theory when one side is always going to vote for their guy regardless of how criminal or openly fascistic he is.
It isn’t a self defeating choice that got us here it’s literally how the system was designed. You say it wasn’t like this 30 years ago, but I question how much you remember of the bush elections, because it’s worse, but this was the natural progression with a party who is pathologically against actual governance.
I’m not going to read the rest of your response,
Then don’t reply.
or you don’t understand game theory when one side is always going to vote for their guy regardless of how criminal or openly fascistic he is.
Humans are not robots. Anyone can vote for anyone. Their mindset at the time of voting is the only thing that determines their vote. Do notice how fixated people are on attacking third party voters with almost no influence over the election, instead of… 77 million? Trump voters, who decided the election. Have you tried unbrainwashing them at all? Like, tally up all the time you spent trying to influence people’s votes - what percent was aimed at Trump voters?
It isn’t a self defeating choice that got us here it’s literally how the system was designed.
It resulted from the design of the system + our society, but those two things are not mutually exclusive. Logical error.
The real world isn’t black and white, like in your morally superior fantasy. I hope your satisfaction lasts through the takeover of the nation, you shortsighted twat.
We are enjoying the fruits of constantly lowering our moral standards. We see more anger towards those who where critical of the genocide than those who needlessly insisted on perpetuating it.
You people act like you’re the only ones against the genocide. I’ve been against Israel and their crimes against humanity for fucking decades. Way before it was in vogue, and people would accuse me of antisemitism almost every time I’d try to educate them. However, I’m smart enough to know that my choices have more than ONE consequence, and sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
That anger is deserved, did you read the image in this post?
That anger is extremely misdirected. You demand unity behind your political candidates, from people who refuse to support them on account of them seeing absolutely horrendous flaws that you refuse to see yourselves.
Why would a mass murderer deserve unity behind them, but a non-mass-murderer doesn’t? The fact that you’ve arrived at that conclusion at all demonstrates the absolutely bankruptcy of your political reasoning - the things that we’re trying to achieve with a social system in the first place are sacrificed. Human life, economic equality, quality of life, all of it.
You’ve lost sight of the entire goal. That’s the logic of drug addiction - chasing a high, diminishing returns, at the cost of your health. You’re continually investing in something which provides you worse and worse outcomes, and refusing to acknowledge alternate choices.
Any reasonable person could tell we had choice between Trump and Harris and we ended up with Trump.
No sane people were fine with it, but sane people have to live in the real world and not believe some fucking fantasy that there was another option at the time.
Let’s start with the very basic logic here. Let’s say 80, 90 million people come out and vote for, say, De la Cruz. Accounting for the electoral college and all that, enough to secure a victory. Is it not true that virtually all of us had the option to put a check next to her name, or write that name in? It is true. Is it true that we would have had a better outcome for the society with De la Cruz, than we would have with Harris or Trump? That is also true. So what - SPECIFICALLY - stopped this from happening.
The democrats did have another option at the time.
We all did.
Cool, we remember - now what? What do we materially do now to resist that isn’t just blaming non-voters online?
Go protest, resist being part of that genocide by laying down work. Call or write your local representatives voice your opinion and ask how you can help to stop that.
Blaming other people and feeling superior is how Democrats win! Aren’t you paying attention? Hey, where are they taking us??!
Get ready to vote Dem really hard in 2028 /s
There aren’t many options… Which is probably why op is blaming non-voters, who are complicit in creating our current situation.
Which is probably why op is blaming non-voters
Should probably blame the people who actually voted for the guy and not an unrelated third party
Bunch of butthurt authoritarians whining about people they failed to engage and saying “but that’s the system we’re in” like that doesn’t apply equally to having to convince people to vote FOR you
Blaming both camps is the best way to go. But why spend efforts blaming the Trump voters? Presumably, they aren’t subject to appeals of logic or compassion or they wouldn’t have voted for him in the first place. So we know they’re pieces of shit. But the jury is still out on the protest non-voters. Did they fail to vote because they disagreed with kamala on a minority of her positions, or did they just not want to elect a brown woman? Assuming that they understood the choices of outcomes between candidates, they voluntarily chose to ignore the greater good for their own personal disagreement. Additionally, there’s evidence that if those protest voters had voted for Kamala she would have won. Therefore, they are to blame. To ignore that is to be an apologist for those at fault.
I remember the BBC manufacturing consent for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris complicity genocide as well.
Interesting that such a fucked system exists that could allow the 50/50 chance that who wins an election could singlehandedly decide if everything is fascism and genocide or not, with what appears to be no real checks of power in place.
And you choose to blame those who have nearly no control over said system.
Lemmy is also a tiny community relative to other similar communities online. Lenmy is also not even just people in the US. You also don’t know how many of those posts were trolls or bots.
It sure seems to me that the larger system and set of choices are completely fucked to begin with and gives the “people” next to no options or say in much of anything.
But yes. If Lemmy people had not slammed Harris… then… something might have been… different?
That’s the thing American citizens/voters need to remember if/when we get past this term: Trump didn’t do this by himself. He was enabled and empowered by Republican (and a significant number of Democrat) members of legislation, as well as crooked judges across every level from state to Supreme. Trump will be kicked out and Republicans will say “Phew, that guy was a disaster! Right, guys? Good thing we all worked together and survived it.” And we can’t just let them do it; everyone currently serving in office from the GOP and 60% (if I’m being very generous to the remainder) of the Democrats should be barred from holding office again. Extend that to the judges too.
The GOP has worked hard to sew shite into every strand of the fabric that binds the nation together. And so insiduously that many idiots will stare at a shite-brown rag and say it’s still the same, ol’ Red, White, and Blue they remember.
The system is fucked but we exist within that system.
So, yes, if you were in front of the trolley lever, you’d remark “Wow, this system is fucked. Why do we even have trolleys? Shouldn’t they have brakes?”
…and then not pull the lever.
None of you crypto-nazis can be honest about this discussion. You keep lying and presenting the choice as between two unequally bad options. If anything the democrats have been objectively worse in hindsight. There would have been no ceasefire if you had your way.
Now that Trump is in office you want to put on your resistance hats again like we didn’t all just watch you rabidly support the genocide yourselves.
It was the same cease fire that was on the table months ago, the only difference was that Isreal was going to continue the genocide until it looked good for their choice of president. And they didn’t even honor it.
The idea that the zionists were conditionally doing genocide for a year just to make your political opponent look good is fucking insane. You’re extremely stupid for not recognizing the relationship between the US and israel gave Biden the ability to stop it any day he wanted as well.
You keep lying and presenting the choice as between two unequally bad options.
This is why people disregard your opinions, because you lie and pretend that they weren’t unequally bad options.
They were both bad options, but saying they’re equal tells me you don’t pay attention or are intentionally lying.
You can hold that belief because you’re a white supremacist that doesn’t value Palestinian lives as human
Man I really wish you guys elected Harris or Joe Biden to sit back and watch this happen instead of talking about it openly, that would have been great for the Palestinians.
I’d rather have someone watch me fight a bear then have them help the bear by shooting me, and the rest of my family, repeatedly while I fight it. So yeah really would’ve been a lot better.
And by watch, I mean supply the bear with billions worth of bombs
I’m not the one that made the claim. I’m merely carrying on the anaolgy. Read what I replied to you jackwagon.
What the heck are you even on about? Did you reply to the wrong person?
Removed by mod
Man I really wish you guys elected Harris or Joe Biden to sit back and watch this happen…
This is you. You said this. You made the claim like mere minutes ago.
Watch this happen, as in: they wouldn’t have “managed” Gaza themselves, but helped Israel or something like the PA control it. Even if I actually claimed that, you are telling me you didn’t know the US was helping Israel when Biden was in office?
You made the claim. I continued by pointing out that the alternative is WAY worse using your same claim. Are you really this obtuse in real life? Or just on the internet?
Why are you quoting someone being objectively correct and dancing around like you won something? Have you spontaneously grown a brain and are now taking exception to the fact that the democrats are worse than ‘just watching’?
To clarify, I don’t think any of us are winning. They made the claim that Biden was just sitting and back and watching. I’m asserting, using their same claim, that the alternative is worse, while also making fun of the fact that watching someone fight a bear and not helping is objectively terrible. Do you really think this analogy makes Biden/the DNC out to be a great people?
It dishonestly presents them as being better people than they are
China really needs to start throwing their weight around on the global stage if they want to be anything more than a regional power.
China should be filling the vacuum on the global stage that the US is vacating.
Maybe after the Chinese authorian regime is done with the cleansing of the uyghurs, they take the place of the US and help Israel with the cleansing of Palestine
China already is extending their hand to places affected by USAID being shut down, I believe.
Everyone had this prediction that China would become the world’s number one superpower at some point, but I don’t know if people predicted that was because the U.S. shot itself it the face.
the hostile corporate takeover is in full effect in the USA. The downfall of America is happening in realtime at an accelerated rate. Capitalism will be the downfall of whatever democracy was left in the US.
China is just sitting back and letting the U.S. hang itself. They’ll step up and step in once America is well and truly down for the count.
edit: autocorrect
Can’t help but notice this. Turns out, the communist plot to destroy America was the billionaires we made along the way.
Marx did say that capitalism would produce its own gravediggers. This isn’t quite what he had in mind but…it’ll do I guess.
To be fair to the BBC, they’re ‘supposed’ to report the facts without judgement. How successful they are at that is debated endlessly, you can find anyone of any political flavour who will swear blind the BBC is ‘obviously’ biased against ‘them’. They can’t win no matter what they do.
See: More than 100 BBC staff accuse broadcaster of Israel bias in Gaza coverage
They’re not trying to be fair, they’re trying to be pro-israel.
Nah, I remember back when Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party and the BBC gleefully participated in the campaign to slander him, including in a news program having as a background a large picture of him digitally altered to put a Soviet hood on his head.
I also remember countless “two side” discussions hosted by the BBC on things like worker rights or the Environment were they put a professional politician on the side against it facing a total amateur on the side for it.
The BBC’s “two sides” has always been a multi-layered propaganda format, starting by the small detail that any social and political subject which is not ridiculously simple has more than 2 options to interpret and tackle it - in other words, more than 2 sides - and going into the above mentioned point that their supposedly open “giving equal voice to both sides” is actually controlled by their choice of the subject matter, who represents each side and even the interviewer’s take on each side and accompanying materials (a typical example would be them reporting as event as “such and such happened” when the source is IDF versus “According to Hamas such and such happened” when the source is Hamas).
The BBC are very sophisticated in how they do it, but their output is heavily spinned and propagandistic.
That this is a very poor excuse at propaganda because the BBC goes out of its way to use “loaded terms” when it comes to adversaries of the empire.
Here is an example from yesterday. https://youtu.be/34Ta0IcQi-E?t=85
Impartiality goes out of the window when the BBC needs to remind everyone that “the Palestinian health ministry is ran by Hamas which is designated as a terrorist organisation in America, the UK and Europe” every single time the death toll in Gaza is brought up as well.
of the empire.
I thought sun already set on that
“The unprecedented attack on October 7th.” is here to justify Israel slaughtering tens of thousands of starving civilians.
They had a bazillion complaints (and still get them) that they report the figures at all and that they don’t treat Hamas being a terrorist organisation as a statement of fact. For a couple of weeks after the October the 7th attack, the reporting was more neutral, and the whole rest of the British press was up in arms about the BBC being antisemitic, and the current situation was the compromise that calmed it down. In a world where Israel having done nothing wrong ever is somehow part of the Overton window, this is what counts as impartial. Impartiality is a bad thing when it’s forced to apply to viewpoints divorced from reality.
Watch the video I linked if you are not convinced. I considered the introduction to be rather long so I timestamped over it. But it sounds like you might need to watch it from the beginning. The video is not about Hamas by the way. That is only another example.
It’s not factual reporting when one side refuses to interact with the truth
The problem for the BBC is that not all stories have equally valid opposing views but they are forced to treat both sides equally at all times… So as the world drifts further and further to insanity, their reporting makes crazy positions seem legitimate as they have to be aired alongside more mainstream views.
It worked OK when the world was fairly stable and political positions were close together. It doesn’t work when political positions are so polarised and extreme.
Case in point: Brexit. The BBC really struggled in challenging extreme positions and outright lies during the brexit campaign.
Unfortunately though I’m not sure there is much alternative. Its fat from perfect but provably the best a public service broadcaster can try to do. At least it tries to provide the facts so people can make up their own minds - that in itself remains laudable.
One of the newsreaders said after leaving that they could easily find 60 economists willing to say brexit would be disastrous, and 1 saying it would be good. Come the show, they’d present one of each to demonstrate balance, but it was very lopsided. Before he went mental, they had Graham Linehan and his wife on a current affairs show to tall about the stress of getting an abortion in Ireland. The producers were then lambasted for not having a pro-abortion person on.
Although, IIRC, the original director general in his diary wrote “the government know they can trust us not to be truly impartial.” You never get Anarchists or Communists on discussion shows.
hey maybe they did. any anarchist & communist with a brain understands that the majority of people will have a knee jerk reaction and shut down if you utter the various trigger phrases (such as “anarchism/communism has some good points”). so they’d probably water down their beliefs for easier digestion
but if you mean an outspoken anarchist who gets invited to talk about anarchism then yeah you’re right, this isn’t happening unless for a joke or to make them a scapegoat
They’ve had Alexei Sayle and Will Self on question time, and they’re both pretty Hard Left, but while they criticise corruption and current affairs, never get to suggest anything hugely radical.
Definitely agree with you there. In an effort to appear balanced they try and present different sides of an argument as if they’re both valid. I guess that’s how Farage got on so much.
I’m all for impartiality. But if a dude says “We should kill everyone who isn’t like me!” You don’t have to say “Before you judge, let’s hear his side.” You can start judging immediately.
They are not impartial on this one
If both ends of the spectrum are saying it, they’re probably threading the needle pretty well.
“Both the Palestinians and Israelis are saying they are being treated unfairly. This means we are treating both fairly”. - enlightened centrist after Biden refuses to send one shipment of 2000 pound bombs to Israel.
that is not sound logic
So much for “never again,” eh? More like “whenever we feel like it” if trends in global hegemony are any indication.
Still #Undecided?
Please don’t engage with trolls like this. They’re trying to divide the left.
We still litigating this?
The dems ran a deeply unpopular candidate on status quo in an election about how the status quo was hurting non-rich Americans. They shoved leftists out of the way in favor of more moderate and conservative leaning people trying to reach out to those that were already not going to vote for them.
I did vote, and I voted for Kamala; that vote wasn’t an excited vote, but one in the hopes that she could win and we could inch another 4 years to a hopefully better candidate set. The amount of emails sent to both Biden and Kamala, and the amount of shitty responses about how its totally OK was deeply disheartening, but I still voted, even though it felt like nothing would change.
Those that didn’t vote due to Gaza, which if memory serves was a small block, specifically stated they just wanted to be recognized. The campaign instead tried to go on Joe Rogan and “toured” with a Cheney.
There’s not some crazy reason people stayed home. They stayed home because either choice felt like doom, and probably felt they didn’t want to participate in either.
That’s all without even getting into the amount of actual voter suppression in general.
But yea, blame those voters.
We still litigating this?
Others might. I am not. I would like to know if people are still identifying as #Undecided, and if it is still a movement. If yes, what’s the plan to influence Trump’s policies on Palestine? If no, is it because they met their goals and thus came to a natural end, or is it because they feel they were played? And if that’s the case, where does that leave the leaders and influencers of the #Undecided movement within the larger Free Palestine movement?
If I came across as brusque, it is because I am frustrated. As shitty as Biden was (I’d like to see him clapped in irons and sent to the Hague, along with Netanyahu and his cronies), how can it be seriously mooted that the administration sending bombs and insisting on a two-state solution is somehow equivalent to the present administration who is sending bombs AND has stated it wants to “clear out” Gaza AND wants American companies to build resorts on Palestinian soil AND wants to send American troops to occupy Palestine AND moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem AND so on?
They stayed home because either choice felt like doom, and probably felt they didn’t want to participate in either.
This is the false equivalency trap they were led into.
Neither side was supporting their cause, but one side was supporting Israel while trying to push for getting aid into the country, and the other side literally said Israel wasn’t killing Palestinians fast enough. You have to be a special kind of dumb to think those two things are the same.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. By not voting, they contributed to the win of the candidate who thinks Palestine shouldn’t exist.
Yes, I absolutely hold those people accountable, for this and every other action he takes. Sitting on the sidelines is immoral. Not participating because they couldn’t get exactly the outcome they wanted isn’t ethically defensible. The system is the way it is until we who are working to change it succeed (which may be never), and until then you pick the lesser of two evils, because not voting isn’t going to prevent the election.
Maybe they argue that by not voting they “sent a message.” Ok, maybe they did. As a consequence, the cost of their message is likely to be the extinction of Palestine.
Many of us tried to “send a message” in 2000, and it changed nothing; those of us who voted for a third party in protest are directly culpable for the war in Iraq and the continued expansion of the Republican agenda in courts and state legislature through two terms.
The protest voters, and protest non-voters, in 2024 participated in what’s to come.
The most infuriating thing about this is that it seems nobody learned anything from WWII. This is like Ghandi preaching passive resistance to German Jews; I have no respect for these people who refused to take a side knowing full well that one candidate was a worse outcome for Palestine.
they just wanted to be recognized
Well they got their wish. They are certainly recognized now.
What a takeaway lol.
Dude, I’m also super angry, but blaming people for wanting to be seen isn’t going to help. If anything, its just going to setup for further divisions, which is what this administration wants.
deleted by creator
Do you imagine this wouldn’t have happened if the election had gone the other way? Yeah they’ve gone mask off, so it’s harder now to pretend it isn’t happening, but the results for people in Gaza are pretty much the same, since this was already Israel’s plan for decades and the US government continued to supply them with the weapons to carry it out. The only real difference is the republicans language saying it out loud and making it harder to ignore.
If we buy into the idea that the situation in Palestine would be exactly the same, that means not voting for Harris because of Palestine was choosing all of the other horrible shit Trump is doing for zero benefit to Palestine.
Really showed them Dems!
Sure, I didn’t make any comment about the internal situation in America, I’m not American. I do think it’s valid to have voted for the democrats for those reasons though, absolutely. But like, even now the democrats are enthusiastically cooperating with the current republican agenda and not really bothering to do anything against it, so I don’t think they care that much either way, even if they wouldn’t have advanced it as fast.
I also think that you have to speak to people’s concerns to win elections and they clearly did not do a good job of that. Of course you can to some extent blame voters for being uninformed, but they are not the ones with a billions dollars marketing budget to communicate what they will actually do to improve things, so I don’t think you can blame them the most.
Removed by mod
The last resort of someone who knows they have no valid argument…
But this was expected right? Is there anyone who genuinely thought this wouldn’t happen? I thought all the people calling out “Genocide Joe” were right-wing alts breaking up the left.
Sadly some of them were just single issue idiots with half a braincell
The BBC has been complicit in the last 16 months of genocide and for good reason.
Robbie Gibb, who is on the BBC’s Board of Trustees, is also Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a fanatically Zionist rag whose funding is hidden but suspected to be tied to the Israeli embassy.
Raffi Berg, BBC News online editor, is a former state department employee, fan of Netanyahu and has been described by one journalists as "This guy’s entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel”
More here:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
